Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, Thatguy said:

What part of this don't you guys understand? The Republicans have successfully pulled 7 presidential terms in my lifetime to the Dems 5. In that time they have cut top line taxes from 70%. Cut corporate taxes. Created a bunch of tax loopholes. Signed a bunch of bills to allow corps to destroy US manufacturing. Dipped into entitlements. Merged the banking sectors back together and allowed banking entities to keep swallowing one another. Deregulated. Got us into a bunch of wars. Ballooned the debt. Put us into a recession everytime one of them has held office. Gotten a bunch of kids shot at school. Reversed women's bodily autonomy. Literally they have successfully been stripping away everything that was gained from the Progressive Era, The New Deal Era, and the Great Society. Republican states have the lowest minimum wages. Most crime. Worst schools. Most poverty. Yet still the masses keep voting for them.

How have they been doing it? Because the American people care more about making sure they have a caste system than they care about self preservation. This has been the problem throughout history regardless of the system the people have been in and the number one reason societies crumble. The Dems struggle because they preach equality. America doesn't want equality. As long as Republicans include a hierarchy they will keep winning.

Considering Benedict Cumberbatch GIF by BBC
 

and as long as there is a caste below the lowest voting group then yeah, it works. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Thoughtful thread about Democratic voter polarization, particularly during the 2020 primary, and how people fall into these terrible social media traps. 

 

Who could have predicted it...

Posted

Heard Greg Casar speak tonight at a fundraiser, well spoken basically said corporate incrementalism won’t cut it, we need to be the party of the working class, with promises to raise the SS tax on millionaires, lower Medicare age to 60 (actually Medicare for all), and other similar radical ideas, allow differences on some issues while treating people decently (he railed on Gavin  being Republican lite), and rally workers in an us versus the billionaires platform. It was good. 

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

No, the argument is that you can still continue to teach these to employees under the EOs. "Inclusion" is not a problem word under the EOs.  Nor is equality or discrimination nor is bias.  So that's not an issue.

Yes, and the effectiveness of whatever you teach is certainly an issue. Companies have to make decisions about how much time employees are in training, and if the DEI program isn't effective, why have it?

But the hill I would likely die on, is that politically I think the Dems would be well served to focus all their energy on econmic color blind affirmative action in all sorts of government and private company policies.  I think that is a faster trip to an equitable society, and it doesn't run up against the current discrimination laws we have which have in many ways locked disadvantaged people into an unfair race.

We CAN discriminate based on economic disadvantage - which if used properly will be more beneficial to historically disadvantaged people of color.

Let's use that tool to get us to an equitable society. 

Moved the conversation over here for obvious reasons-

First and foremost pivoting to different wording isn't going to work. You DO understand that this isn't about a demographic that is fatigued with the attention paid to marginalized groups, right? This is a political party that wants to eradicate what they see as inferior humans. They are starting with what they feel they can get away with. Erasing of black history. Using DEI to push black people out of high level spaces. Attacking brown immigration, specifically Hispanics. They are starting here because it's what can work at the current juncture. Once they further erode the constitution they will come for the citizens next. We are 6 months in and they are at full on war with the Judicial. They want this land straight and white, and they want to consolidate power into the hands of the president who will create policy that the ruling class wants. If they could get away with lining all the marginalized group in front of a firing squad they would. 

That being said if you are the Dems you don't take one step backwards only to be seen as "they are both the same". You hold your ground or you lose this country entirely. Every step backwards you take is another step to normalize this bullshit agenda they are pushing. Next thing you know 1939 Germany. We learned that lesson these last 10 years with Trump. When he first popped on the scene with his bullshit, he was the only one that was playing the shock and awe, cruelty is the point, insult you to your face, out in the open racist bullshit. Now look. The entire Republican party is that now. Why? Because we allowed it, and now there are no normal politics. Draw the fucking line in the sand and stand 10 toes down on it. Retreating is not an option. Turning our backs on marginalized groups to attract moderate Rs is not an option. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
Posted
2 hours ago, Thatguy said:

Moved the conversation over here for obvious reasons-

First and foremost pivoting to different wording isn't going to work. You DO understand that this isn't about a demographic that is fatigued with the attention paid to marginalized groups, right? This is a political party that wants to eradicate what they see as inferior humans. They are starting with what they feel they can get away with. Erasing of black history. Using DEI to push black people out of high level spaces. Attacking brown immigration, specifically Hispanics. They are starting here because it's what can work at the current juncture. Once they further erode the constitution they will come for the citizens next. We are 6 months in and they are at full on war with the Judicial. They want this land straight and white, and they want to consolidate power into the hands of the president who will create policy that the ruling class wants. If they could get away with lining all the marginalized group in front of a firing squad they would. 

That being said if you are the Dems you don't take one step backwards only to be seen as "they are both the same". You hold your ground or you lose this country entirely. Every step backwards you take is another step to normalize this bullshit agenda they are pushing. Next thing you know 1939 Germany. We learned that lesson these last 10 years with Trump. When he first popped on the scene with his bullshit, he was the only one that was playing the shock and awe, cruelty is the point, insult you to your face, out in the open racist bullshit. Now look. The entire Republican party is that now. Why? Because we allowed it, and now there are no normal politics. Draw the fucking line in the sand and stand 10 toes down on it. Retreating is not an option. Turning our backs on marginalized groups to attract moderate Rs is not an option. 

Having a discussion in the proper thread doesn’t derail another thread, and so I expect this particular conversation will not have legs.

This is the issue where Republicans ought to join with Democrats. If not, then why ever seek common ground, because there isn’t any.

image.png.f4b2edb20b1ec69770aaff77fc231c40.png

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted

Here is a perfect example of Democrats being pussies….

When Patrick dumped those gummies on the table and said they were killing our kids the Dems should have countered by dumping a shit load of assault weapons on the table to show them what is really killing kids.

But no…….

  • Rage+1 3
Posted
7 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

WTF is this shit

 

Whitmer “very disappointed” Trump is considering pardoning the men who plotted her kidnapping 

I would have thought attempting to kill the governor would have resulted in state crimes that can’t be subject to a Presidential pardon.

Posted
8 minutes ago, hornmpa96 said:

I would have thought attempting to kill the governor would have resulted in state crimes that can’t be subject to a Presidential pardon.

It most assuredly could have and probably should have.  But it didn't.

Posted
10 hours ago, Thatguy said:

First and foremost pivoting to different wording isn't going to work. You DO understand that this isn't about a demographic that is fatigued with the attention paid to marginalized groups, right? This is a political party that wants to eradicate what they see as inferior humans. They are starting with what they feel they can get away with. Erasing of black history. Using DEI to push black people out of high level spaces.

You are way, way, way overstating the DEI executive orders.  I've got no issue with the EOs as symbols of all of the evils you are suggesting.  But the required response to those orders for private companies that don't want to rock the boat is absolutely minimal.  And we haven't seen repercussions for those who don't want to make changes.  

It's absolutely an open question as to whether DEI has a significant impact keeping people in "high level spaces".  The problem with unquestioning support for DEI is that it's unclear whether it has had any significant impact in in getting people to high level spaces and keeping them there. 

Moving towards economic based affirmative action would be a huge step forward, not back.  Whether or not one wants to carry the vestiges of DEI along with it.

Anyway, that's my stance.  DEI is fine but not good enough. Dems should take the opportunity to move towards supporting a better, more effective approach to equity in hiring and opportunity.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Gorsuch concurrence in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard case:

 Even beyond all this, the parties debate the availability of alternatives. SFFA contends that both Harvard and UNC could obtain significant racial diversity without resorting to race-based admissions practices. Many other universities across the country, SFFA points out, have sought to do just that by reducing legacy preferences, increasing financial aid, and the like. Brief for Petitioner 85– 86; see also Brief for Oklahoma et al. as Amici Curiae 9– 19.4 As part of its affirmative case, SFFA also submitted evidence that Harvard could nearly replicate the current racial composition of its student body without resorting to race-based practices if it: (1) provided socioeconomically disadvantaged applicants just half of the tip it gives recruited athletes; and (2) eliminated tips for the children of donors, alumni, and faculty. Brief for Petitioner 33–34, 81; see 2 App. in No. 20–1199, at 763–765, 774–775. Doing these two things would barely affect the academic credentials of each incoming class. Brief for Petitioner 33–34. And it would not require Harvard to end tips for recruited athletes, who as a group are much weaker academically than non-athletes.5 At trial, however, Harvard resisted this proposal. Its preferences for the children of donors, alumni, and faculty are no help to applicants who cannot boast of their parents’ good fortune or trips to the alumni tent all their lives. While race-neutral on their face, too, these preferences undoubtedly benefit white and wealthy applicants the most. See 980 F. 3d, at 171. Still, Harvard stands by them. See Brief for Respondent in No. 20–1199, at 52–54; Tr. of Oral Arg. in No. 21–1199, at 48–49. A

 

A discussion of focusing on economic affirmative action and integration.

Ep. 15: Can Economic Affirmative Action Replace DEI? | Washington Monthly



×
×
  • Create New...